Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Arguments pro circumcision

No change in size, 20:52, 23 October 2019
m
no edit summary
*: There are several comments: Firstly, the study design was already distroyed with the start of the trial. The circumcised control group was circumcised directly at the beginning of the study. This means that the intact control group had a 'contagion lead' of six weeks which were applied until the circumcision wounds have healed. Secondly, the entire study was carried out in the region with the highest HIV rate around the world. Thus the results are not that meaningfull as if the study would have been carried out in areas with 'normal' infection rates. Orange Farm, the village in South Africa, is well-known for the high rate of HIV. A third criticism is that the study of [[Bertran Auvert|Auvert]] comes up with mathematical legerdemain and was also canceled after two years, when the figures threatened to align themselves. Unfortunately, this study is also the basis on which the [[WHO]] performs worth millions [[circumcision]] campaigns with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
* '''Circumcision supposedly protects against urinary tract infections (HTIUTI).'''
*: Urinary tract infections are much more common in women than in men, which is due to the shorter urethra. It is entirely sufficient to treat a urinary tract infection with antibiotics.
administrator, administrators, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators
22,335
edits

Navigation menu